"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Whether Jane somehow finds a full cut-and-paste too hard, or whether she finds intellectual honesty too inconvenient for a rhetorical point, for the information of members, here's the full abstract:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

And with laziness being a long-time companion of ignorant sscientific skepticism, here's something Jane could also have checked and posted: the principal author's credentials:

David J. Depew is Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies and POROI (Project on the Rhetoric of Inquiry) at the University of Iowa. He was previously Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fullerton. Much of his work is in the philosophy, history, and rhetoric of evolutionary biology, writing often with Bruce H. Weber. He also writes on ancient biology and its relation to modern; and on how rhetoric, philosophy, and science have interacted since antiquity. [http://clas.uiowa.edu...]

So Depew's a retired philosopher and rhetorician talking about evolution, not an actively-researching biologist doing so. And the abstract doesn't say that evolution is false; he's arguing for a broader perspective than simply an account of the origin of species.

And most importantly, it's evident from the full abstract (as it was not from Jane's excerpt) that this article offers philosophical conjecture, and is not reporting a scientific finding.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Whether Jane somehow finds a full cut-and-paste too hard, or whether she finds intellectual honesty too inconvenient for a rhetorical point, for the information of members, here's the full abstract:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

And with laziness being a long-time companion of ignorant sscientific skepticism, here's something Jane could also have checked and posted: the principal author's credentials:

David J. Depew is Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies and POROI (Project on the Rhetoric of Inquiry) at the University of Iowa. He was previously Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fullerton. Much of his work is in the philosophy, history, and rhetoric of evolutionary biology, writing often with Bruce H. Weber. He also writes on ancient biology and its relation to modern; and on how rhetoric, philosophy, and science have interacted since antiquity. [http://clas.uiowa.edu...]

So Depew's a retired philosopher and rhetorician talking about evolution, not an actively-researching biologist doing so. And the abstract doesn't say that evolution is false; he's arguing for a broader perspective than simply an account of the origin of species.

And most importantly, it's evident from the full abstract (as it was not from Jane's excerpt) that this article offers philosophical conjecture, and is not reporting a scientific finding.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Would you like it better if I said "Neo Darwinism" ? The fact is, you know exactly what I mean either way.

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common descent is implied in your version of evolution. I believe it is likely true, things evolve from common ancestors.

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

That site is quite a joke, to be honest with you. Compare those numbers to that of Project Steve (http://ncse.com...) which does the same thing except that it only accepts those with a Ph.D. in a scientific field with the name, Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie. Currently this list (representing about 1% of the scientific field) is at 1,378 while Dissent from Darwin is still less than 1,000.

Furthermore, the statement cited above isn't an outright denial of the theory's validity. In fact, this statement should perhaps apply to everyone; careful examination of the evidence is definitely strongly encouraged, and skepticism can be good for science.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Whether Jane somehow finds a full cut-and-paste too hard, or whether she finds intellectual honesty too inconvenient for a rhetorical point, for the information of members, here's the full abstract:

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

And with laziness being a long-time companion of ignorant sscientific skepticism, here's something Jane could also have checked and posted: the principal author's credentials:

David J. Depew is Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies and POROI (Project on the Rhetoric of Inquiry) at the University of Iowa. He was previously Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fullerton. Much of his work is in the philosophy, history, and rhetoric of evolutionary biology, writing often with Bruce H. Weber. He also writes on ancient biology and its relation to modern; and on how rhetoric, philosophy, and science have interacted since antiquity. [http://clas.uiowa.edu...]

So Depew's a retired philosopher and rhetorician talking about evolution, not an actively-researching biologist doing so. And the abstract doesn't say that evolution is false; he's arguing for a broader perspective than simply an account of the origin of species.

And most importantly, it's evident from the full abstract (as it was not from Jane's excerpt) that this article offers philosophical conjecture, and is not reporting a scientific finding.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

Again, less than one-tenth of a percent of scientists in the world have put their names on that list. Nowhere on their website do they talk about evolution, the postulates or have any other alternative explanations. No one cares what those guys think, their opinions are as irrelevant as they are ignorant, just like yours, Jane.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

That site is quite a joke, to be honest with you. Compare those numbers to that of Project Steve (http://ncse.com...) which does the same thing except that it only accepts those with a Ph.D. in a scientific field with the name, Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie. Currently this list (representing about 1% of the scientific field) is at 1,378 while Dissent from Darwin is still less than 1,000.

Why a joke? Because it is about Intelligent Design? I am not an ID advocate/believer, although some arguments make sense to me and I think need to be explained, such as irreducible complexity.

Furthermore, the statement cited above isn't an outright denial of the theory's validity. In fact, this statement should perhaps apply to everyone; careful examination of the evidence is definitely strongly encouraged, and skepticism can be good for science.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Would you like it better if I said "Neo Darwinism" ? The fact is, you know exactly what I mean either way.

Evolution is fine. The problem is that many people like you are more than willing to misuse terms when it suits their purpose, and the whole reason the word Darwinism is normally used in lieu of modern evolution is for rhetorical reasons.

If you don't see the importance about strict use of terminology and meaning in scientific arena's, you really should be talking about it.

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common descent is implied in your version of evolution. I believe it is likely true, things evolve from common ancestors.

There is no "my" version of evolution, there is just evolution.

And Evolution is the mechanism that has driven common descent; but regardless of your thoughts on evolution, common descent, is true, and indeed evolution is also true to a greater or lesser extent too. It may not be the whole story, but given what we so far understand, it's a massive portion of it.

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

What, exactly, are my "false claims"?

Here, specifically,

"Yes, I don't "understand" how random mutations and natural selection can drive evolution. Perhaps because there is no evidence for it."

Your original post implying that evolution is wrong. And your subsequent follow up implication that there is significant descent to it within science.

In your other post, that analysis of genes stands opposed to evolution, that the explanations of them are excuses, convergent evolution doesn't support evolution, in the past that there is no evidence that random mutation can drive evolution, and any one of the other crackpot claims you have made based on no rational argument, and the unjustified rejection of anything that stands against them.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

That site is quite a joke, to be honest with you. Compare those numbers to that of Project Steve (http://ncse.com...) which does the same thing except that it only accepts those with a Ph.D. in a scientific field with the name, Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie. Currently this list (these names above representing about 1% of the scientific field) is at 1,378 while Dissent from Darwin is still less than 1,000.

I made a minor mistake; corrected above.

Why a joke? Because it is about Intelligent Design? I am not an ID advocate/believer, although some arguments make sense to me and I think need to be explained, such as irreducible complexity.

No, it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design; just the public declaration of skepticism of the Theory of Evolution. To say, "if not Evolution, then ID", is a false dichotomy. I call it a joke because of the thin numbers and that some of those people aren't even in relative fields, and the statement, as I said below, doesn't really say too much. Additionally, there are no argument or alternative presented by that site.

This is from the FAQ section of that site:

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signatories endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written. Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory"s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

Furthermore, the statement cited above isn't an outright denial of the theory's validity. In fact, this statement should perhaps apply to everyone; careful examination of the evidence is definitely strongly encouraged, and skepticism can be good for science.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Would you like it better if I said "Neo Darwinism" ? The fact is, you know exactly what I mean either way.

Evolution is fine. The problem is that many people like you are more than willing to misuse terms when it suits their purpose, and the whole reason the word Darwinism is normally used in lieu of modern evolution is for rhetorical reasons.

If you don't see the importance about strict use of terminology and meaning in scientific arena's, you really should be talking about it.

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common descent is implied in your version of evolution. I believe it is likely true, things evolve from common ancestors.

There is no "my" version of evolution, there is just evolution.

That's not exactly true, James Shapiro thinks evolution is driven by other things, such as natural genetic engineering

And Evolution is the mechanism that has driven common descent; but regardless of your thoughts on evolution, common descent, is true, and indeed evolution is also true to a greater or lesser extent too. It may not be the whole story, but given what we so far understand, it's a massive portion of it.

I agree

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

What, exactly, are my "false claims"?

Here, specifically,

"Yes, I don't "understand" how random mutations and natural selection can drive evolution. Perhaps because there is no evidence for it."

Your original post implying that evolution is wrong. And your subsequent follow up implication that there is significant descent to it within science.

In your other post, that analysis of genes stands opposed to evolution, that the explanations of them are excuses, convergent evolution doesn't support evolution, in the past that there is no evidence that random mutation can drive evolution, and any one of the other crackpot claims you have made based on no rational argument, and the unjustified rejection of anything that stands against them.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

That site is quite a joke, to be honest with you. Compare those numbers to that of Project Steve (http://ncse.com...) which does the same thing except that it only accepts those with a Ph.D. in a scientific field with the name, Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie. Currently this list (representing about 1% of the scientific field) is at 1,378 while Dissent from Darwin is still less than 1,000.

Why a joke? Because it is about Intelligent Design? I am not an ID advocate/believer, although some arguments make sense to me and I think need to be explained, such as irreducible complexity.

You don't even understand evolution, so what's the point of you attempting to wrap your head around irreducible complexity, you simply won't understand any of it until you learn something about evolution.

Furthermore, the statement cited above isn't an outright denial of the theory's validity. In fact, this statement should perhaps apply to everyone; careful examination of the evidence is definitely strongly encouraged, and skepticism can be good for science.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Would you like it better if I said "Neo Darwinism" ? The fact is, you know exactly what I mean either way.

Evolution is fine. The problem is that many people like you are more than willing to misuse terms when it suits their purpose, and the whole reason the word Darwinism is normally used in lieu of modern evolution is for rhetorical reasons.

If you don't see the importance about strict use of terminology and meaning in scientific arena's, you really should be talking about it.

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common descent is implied in your version of evolution. I believe it is likely true, things evolve from common ancestors.

There is no "my" version of evolution, there is just evolution.

That's not exactly true, James Shapiro thinks evolution is driven by other things, such as natural genetic engineering

I was pointing out that the theory of evolution, is primarily a scientific framework which is built upon the evidence and theories of a great number of scientists over 250 years; and as such it isn't "mine".

And Evolution is the mechanism that has driven common descent; but regardless of your thoughts on evolution, common descent, is true, and indeed evolution is also true to a greater or lesser extent too. It may not be the whole story, but given what we so far understand, it's a massive portion of it.

I agree

No, you really don't. Considering the posts you've made thus far, you seem unwilling to accept key aspects of evolution that are well established.

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

What, exactly, are my "false claims"?

Here, specifically,

"Yes, I don't "understand" how random mutations and natural selection can drive evolution. Perhaps because there is no evidence for it."

Your original post implying that evolution is wrong. And your subsequent follow up implication that there is significant descent to it within science.

In your other post, that analysis of genes stands opposed to evolution, that the explanations of them are excuses, convergent evolution doesn't support evolution, in the past that there is no evidence that random mutation can drive evolution, and any one of the other crackpot claims you have made based on no rational argument, and the unjustified rejection of anything that stands against them.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

Jane, why have you decided to ignore the other thread, where I have been demonstrating that you are being intellectually dishonest in your treatment of evolution?

Do you actually want an explanation or increase your knowledge, or are you just looking for reasons to reject any examples or explanations that you do not like that disagree with your own?

I only object to that which has not been proven through science, such as random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I also object to the theory that the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution.

I'm not ignoring the other thread, I simply haven't gotten back to it yet. It's been less than a day since I responded to it.

Why are you fixating on Darwinism? Modern evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't include population genetics, mendelivian genetics, modern genetic understanding, embryological development, advances in our understanding of microbiology and biochemistry?

Would you like it better if I said "Neo Darwinism" ? The fact is, you know exactly what I mean either way.

Evolution is fine. The problem is that many people like you are more than willing to misuse terms when it suits their purpose, and the whole reason the word Darwinism is normally used in lieu of modern evolution is for rhetorical reasons.

If you don't see the importance about strict use of terminology and meaning in scientific arena's, you really should be talking about it.

Darwinism has really been dead for almost a 100 years now, it forms part of evolution but not everything in evolution.

You are also under the false impression that Common Descent and evolution are the same thing.

Common descent is implied in your version of evolution. I believe it is likely true, things evolve from common ancestors.

There is no "my" version of evolution, there is just evolution.

That's not exactly true, James Shapiro thinks evolution is driven by other things, such as natural genetic engineering

I was pointing out that the theory of evolution, is primarily a scientific framework which is built upon the evidence and theories of a great number of scientists over 250 years; and as such it isn't "mine".

And Evolution is the mechanism that has driven common descent; but regardless of your thoughts on evolution, common descent, is true, and indeed evolution is also true to a greater or lesser extent too. It may not be the whole story, but given what we so far understand, it's a massive portion of it.

I agree

No, you really don't. Considering the posts you've made thus far, you seem unwilling to accept key aspects of evolution that are well established.

Yes, I do actually. It's a main part of my beliefs. Where have I stated I don't believe in common ancestry?

Common Descent is separate from evolution and most assuredly demonstrable and HAS been confirmed through numerous experiments and predictions. Even if evolution was shown to not be the reason why life is the way it is, Common Descent would still be true.

None of your claims here are true, but as you are clearly unwilling to actually read and study the appropriate science on the matter, nor are you apparently willing to even consider anything that stands opposed to your own viewpoint; rather than going through in great detail to explain why the explanation has some major flaw, you simply reject it in favor of your own, false claims.

What, exactly, are my "false claims"?

Here, specifically,

"Yes, I don't "understand" how random mutations and natural selection can drive evolution. Perhaps because there is no evidence for it."

Your original post implying that evolution is wrong. And your subsequent follow up implication that there is significant descent to it within science.

In your other post, that analysis of genes stands opposed to evolution, that the explanations of them are excuses, convergent evolution doesn't support evolution, in the past that there is no evidence that random mutation can drive evolution, and any one of the other crackpot claims you have made based on no rational argument, and the unjustified rejection of anything that stands against them.

Nothing to say on this?

Not really. I just wanted to know what you thought my false claims were. You answered my question.

At 9/30/2015 7:18:05 PM, janesix wrote:"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

The article is at its best describing the history and progression of the theory of evolution. The author's conclusion isn't, as janesix claims, that Darwinism is dead (he refutes this interpretation of the paper fairly early in the text); rather it's a critique on the genetic reductionist model (the sort of neoDarwinism championed by Dawkins).

***

Unfortunately, however, the powerful discourse of the Modern Synthesis, at once mathematical and humanistic, failed to be absorbed intact into public sphere discussions and so failed to change the dog-eat-dog image of Darwinism that had long before been fixed in the age of ideology. Perhaps it was too technical. Although it was introduced into school curricula in the 1960s, perhaps it was badly taught. However that may be, the recrudescence of creationism in some countries must be construed as marking the inability of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, in spite of considerable effort, to affect how Darwinism is understood by the public.

I think he's 100% right on this point. The rigour of the Modern Synthesis never gained traction in popular science, and consequently the creationist movement has been successful by refuting the popular perception of evolution as a science rather than tackling the mathematics of it.